Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
However, I would like to note that when the idea of a possible runaway global warming event occuring on earth was introduced it was purely speculation.

In my mind, it's still plausible. There hasn't been a case yet that we can confirm, when an asteroid crashed into Earth. Large meteorites, yes, but not a real asteroid (with the exception of one theory by which the Moon was created from such impact).

Now, is it plausible that an asteroid hits Earth? Very much so, until we do some kind of exhaustive sky survey and even then there is a lot of dynamics that can swing yet another one on the collision course. I'm not saying that's likely, I'm saying that should this happen and not foreseen well in advance, we are doomed.

Same logic, I think, is applicable to runaway effects in the atmosphere, be it the thermal inversion or runaway heat wave. We should keep an eye out. The connection between greenhouse gases and the warming is not a 100% certainty but sure as hell that's one plausible model. It makes sense from the physics point of view. Ever wondered why it's so chilly on a clear night out, and so balmy on a cloudy night? Trapped infrared radiation in the latter case, and infrared bleeding to space in the former.

As to the OP, the record speed of icing-up was recorded after a record speed of de-icing and it's not even clear how much ice will be replaced to offset the dangerous trend in the long run.

Originally posted by Indy

But the overall solar output---which is what matters for global climate has not changed significantly.

That is an assumption. You don't know what the requirement is.

It's no longer clear that the "Little Ice Age" was truly a global climatological phenomenon, or just one in Europe, where we have greatest records.

To assert that it is a "cyclical nature" of the Sun-Earth system requires physical mechanistic explanations, just like global warming from greenhouse gases did (and it has been verified with experiments and observations).

More speculation. Your comment makes the assumption that current reporting is correct. It makes the assumption that CO2 is the cause of warming (which it is not in this case) and that it has been validated which it has not as well. CO2 levels and temperatures have changed. You take the position that CO2 caused the change and that you are right. I say that is incorrect. I say that CO2 levels have changed as a result of temperature increases and therefore attempts to verify the Global Warming theory have failed. The models predicting the worst case scenarios have all failed.

I, like other scientists, make that conclusion based on decades of experimental evidence. Analysis based on enormous data bases of independently observed physical facts is not speculation. In 1957 or so (when people started thinking about this very seriously) it was a speculation since the observations were not done.

The fact that the CO2 and other greenhouse levels have increased due to human activity is an unambiguous fact. The isotopic ratios demonstrate that this CO2 was from fossil fuel sources which have not been in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of millions of years---far longer than the recent cycle of climate shifts due to ice age/warm period fluctuations.

Now, there may be additional CO2 starting to be emitted from feedforwards, and this will make global warming even worse.

If you look at the ice core temperature samples you will see something very obvious. The changes are cyclical. It is also VERY clear that CO2 decreases lag behind temperature decreases which fails the CO2 causing global warming claim. I can fabricate a model just as well as anyone else and I'm sure I can get someone to validate my claim. Does it make it right? Nope. But for some reason if I get a bunch of people to copy my work it somehow becomes right. At least that is modern climate science.

No it freaking isn't. Do you have any idea how this works?

Before human activity, of course, the CO2 emission cycles was due to biological and chemical feedbacks and feedforwards driven by an interaction between orbital fluctuations which were highly amplified by the greenhouse emissions.

This time, with human activity, we have emitted CO2 from a different source, and at a rate much faster than ever before in geological history, and in a circumstance with no significant solar changes. This isn't speculation but fact based on enormous amounts of work.

Global Warming supporters basically are taking the side in the "which came first? the chicken or the egg?" argument that the egg came first and the very existence of the chicken proves it.

No, global warming "supporters" (I don't like it, but it is true) take the position that climate is governed by laws of physics which are knowable from experiment and theory.

Taking a position which is plausible but not provable doesn't make you right.

That's true. That's why we need experimental evidence. The evidence is that the CO2 is mechanistic in changing upper atmospheric radiation transfer and this changes equilibrium temperature. The point is that there are laws of physics, rock solid, which support this. It is not a debatable point.

Physical mechanistic explanation, not correlation is the origin of explanation for global warming. This is why it was predicted to happen long before there was direct evidence of significant excess warming (because the signal was, then, below the "noise", and now it isn't).

The Global Warming theory cannot be proven. We do not have the ability to determine whether CO2 is causing temperature changes or whether temperature changes are causing CO2 level changes because both are plausible.

That's a lie. We observe the radiation balance in the upper atmosphere, and note that it has changed over decades exactly as predicted due to changes in atmospheric chemistry, i.e. more greenhouse gases.

However there is very solid evidence that on a number of occasions temperature changes plunged well in advance of CO2 changes. It throws a huge curve ball for those claiming that CO2 is the cause of change.

No, not to people who actually work on this. The existence of some mechanisms which change temperature do not negate the existence of others. In fact, scientists know that none of them ever "go away" and imagining otherwise is a false dichotomy.

Based on the Global Warming theory it would be impossible for this to happen.

No, not at all. Global warming 'theory' is not based on this false dichotomy that the only way warming can happen is from CO2, it is based on the physically verified notion that more CO2 results in higher temperatures if all else is equal, because of increased IR emissivity in the upper atmosphere.

If reality was the reverse of the GW theory which I believe it to be you could explain with ease the drop in the temperatures in advance of the CO2 decline. Oh I'm sure someone will throw out a meaningless and unproven formula to try and explain it.

You mean like laws of physics? Orbital fluctuations start cooling and then biological and chemical feedforwards take over. The magnitude of the temperature changes from orbital fluctuations are too small to explain historical evidence without the effect of CO2. The historical record fully supports the evidence of the *mechanism* of CO2 on temperature.

Today, we have an emitter of CO2 which did not ever exist in the past.

The trajectory will hence be differ

the changes in the future will be in any beneficial (cooling) or even more harmful (warming) direction

I believe you are completely incorrect here. In fact warming is beneficial while cooling is harmful. Warming, especially in the small amounts that would realistically be possible would result in longer growing seasons. It would expand the frost free safe zone for crops. It would mean fewer crop failures.

Saskatchewan will indeed benefit from warming. However, the agriculture in downstream from the Himalayas will be devastated by the lower amount of snow, resulting in floods and droughts. In many places agriculture is limited by water, not warmth.

However cooling by even a small amount could be disastrous. There is plenty you can do to cope with an increase in temperatures like changing planting dates and adding irrigation systems. There is little you can do to cope with the cold. History is very clear on this. The consequences of cooling are well documented during the Little Ice Age and the period starting in 1812 caused by the Tambora eruption.

I think you underestimate the true size of the upcoming global warming change. If it is 5 degrees C, (which it could be in 100 years, easily), results will be devastating. Remember, that is over the entire planet (70% water) and over all seasons.

Think about an Ice Age. You know, deep snow & glaciers everywhere? That was 5C cooler. And glaciers were 2 miles thick in New York. A Heat Age every bit as hot above now versus the Ice Age? And you think that will be a minor perturbation?

The reality is that nothing has been proven so until that point all doors are still open.

Utterly untrue.

Originally posted by testrat
This is great news for the polar bears. With the lack of sea ice the last few years many have been forced to cannibalized. At least this winter it sounds like they will be eating seals.

Thanks for your evidence. Talk about a small sample size. All of a sudden 3 cases of Male Polar Bears attacking females and babies is somehow translated into many being forced to become cannibals. Males do that all the time, that is why females stay far away from male bears. The four articles you reference all refer to the same 3 attacks. While I don't dispute that some incidents of outright canabalism occur, it is not widespread as you seem to contend.

Polar bears are a relatively recent emerging species, filling a specific ecological/climate niche, they will have to adapt to survive, like everything else.

I just love hearing about the poor poor Polar Bears and how they are suffering at our hands